(08-12-2019, 01:28 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(08-12-2019, 12:55 PM)B2hibry Wrote: That is a narrow point of view and naive. Kind of funny (ironic) how that is the same thought process with each and every "gun control" measure for each an every emotional reaction to highly publicized shooting. Not every mass shooting, just the ones that meet an agenda.

Not that type of gun, this one. Not that magazine type, this one. Not that bullet type, this one. Rinse and repeat until there is precedence to ban everything. And Yes, staying true to the 2nd Amendment you have the right to access for that type of weaponery.

You think that because of the 2nd Amendment, there is no limit on what type of arms you are allowed to own?

As with the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment literally exists to say that there can't be a law about owning guns. I mean, they didn't even group it together into the 1st, they carved out gun ownership into it's own Amendment specifically to say "Congress cannot make any laws or say anything about this right of the People." Any "limit" violates the 2nd Amendment, that we've permitted the government to whittle away at that right as much as they have is to our shame.

---

(08-12-2019, 07:07 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: As a legal gun owner I will say this.  The "solutions" being floated right now concern me.  The so-called "solutions" range from taxing to outright banning.  I personally think that it's un-constitutional and poses a hardship more to law abiding citizens and responsible firearm owners.

First of all the "assault weapons" argument is pretty much a non-argument.  An AR-15 is the same as a .223 hunting rifle.  The difference?  An AR-15 is black in color (ironic isn't it?).  It typically has a collapsible stock, a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.  Those are standard on a modern sporting rifle.  The ones that I have purchased came with 30 round magazines (they are not called "clips").  They are not much different from a .22 rifle, in fact the round has the same diameter.  The only difference is the velocity.

Getting out of the technical difference between different rifles, one argument comes up saying "why do you need that to defend your family"?  Well, I happen to own some acreage in the middle of the woods (forest) with some livestock and some small pets.  There are predators there (coyotes and bobcats) that threaten and will kill my livestock and/or pets.  A .223 or a 5.56 round (the same round fired from and AR-15) is perfect for eliminating the threat.

When the argument comes up about round capacity again I point to why I own the weapons that I do, coyotes and bobcats can be pretty quick.  You WILL fire off multiple rounds trying to drop one.

Now of course, this part of the argument only deals with someone in a rural setting.  Most gun violence happens in an urban setting.  Most of the calls for "sensible gun control" comes from people that grew up and/or live in an urban environment.  I would invite any one of them to come onto my property and take a walk along my trails after dark. I invite them to listen to the bobcats and the coyotes sounding off, especially if the animals are close.

The thing that makes me cringe is when some anti-gun nut says "you don't need that".  Come and take a walk in my shoes and see what you think that you "need".  Come and see what it looks like when wild animals tear up and eat your pets.  Out in the woods, the police aren't going to get there very soon.  The "need" for guns and protection is real.  Not so much in an urban environment.  All of the US doesn't live in an urban environment.

The wild animals in urban environments are much more dangerous that those in the sticks.

---